Thugs of Hindustan - Criminal Tribes Act 1871 of British India

Criminal Tribes Act (CTA), India

In 1871 the British rulers  passed a law known as Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) branding scores of castes and communities steeped in grinding poverty in India, as ‘born criminals’. 

This barbaric law was first notified and enforced in northern India that was subsequently extended to Bengal and other provinces as well.  It notified 160 castes that constitute the core of present day ‘Dalit Samaj’ as hereditary criminals.

 As a community they were branded as criminals by birth, that receive training in professions like theft, burglary, house-breaking, robbery, dacoity, and counterfeiting from one generation to the next.  

The total head count of these criminal tribes was approximately 60 million constituting nearly 30% of the total population (according to 1871 census the total population of India was about 200 million). 

All the members of the so called ‘criminal-tribes’ were native Hindus. As such, with a single stroke of pen the British rulers declared 30% of the Hindu population as hereditary criminals, thereby condemning their unborn generations as ‘pariahs’ destined to work as hewers of wood and drawers of water.

It is important to note that the CTA made it lawful to perform genocide against a list of Indian tribes at different regions (Bhils, Kanjars, Sansis, Nats, Meenas, Charas, Satnamis, Gonds, Marias, Chenchus, etc., to name a few), deemed to be criminals by birth.  

Apparently, many of these tribes were deprived of basic human rights not because they were indulged in any criminal activity but because they were fighting against British destruction of their jungles and other habitats. 

Thugs were one such courageous tribe that valiantly fought against British rulers. As such, they were badly maligned via publicized atrocity literature and ‘Thug’ became a synonym for criminal in English language!  

Surprisingly, this distortion and misrepresentation of Indian history and traditions is being taught at major academic institutions both in India and the west, even today. This needs to be exposed and corrected by presenting the facts at appropriate academic forums.

Thus, the bill introduced in 1871 by the British Jurist, James Fitzjames Stephen (who authored Indian Evidence Act), deprived these communities elementary human rights and dignity, permanently arresting their socioeconomic growth by restricting their mobility. 

This draconian law was based on an irrational assumption that people in India have been pursuing the ‘caste-system-defined-job-positions’ like weaving, carpentry  that is passed on from one generation to the next, as a hereditary profession.  Therefore, there must have been hereditary criminals as well who followed their forefathers’ profession! 

Elaborating on this atrocious logic he commented “when we speak of professional criminals we mean a tribe whose ancestors from time immemorial destined by the usage of caste to commit crime, and whose descendants will be offenders against law, until the whole tribe is exterminated in the manner of thugs’.

 Thus, this draconian law was evidently based on an irrational assumption rather than on any empirical research data.  No attempt was made to investigate the causes that compelled these hapless tribes to take to crime for earning a livelihood-a phenomenon which apparently took shape during the long period of Islamic rule in India.  

Mercifully, British rulers did not follow this advice, namely the extermination of these hapless tribes, as suggested by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, follower of Anglican Church turned lawmaker for India!

The people that praise British as just and egalitarian and blame high caste Hindus for social evils in India (Kancha Ilaiah) should answer as to why the British did not ban untouchability during their 200-years long rule of India? 

Also, these critics should recognize the fact that people who agitated for the abolition of untouchability and facilitated the untouchability prevention act of 1955, were mostly high caste Hindus.  

Consequently the Dalit Samaj of today holds deep grudge against the so-called ‘high castes’ and the caste warfare rhetoric goes on relentlessly, even after six decades after the  independence.  The leftist and pseudo-secular writers find no time to find the truth, and unfortunately, the vote-bank politics and caste warfare continue unabated.  

Source: https://www.myind.net/Home/viewArticle/scheduled-castes-and-tribes-fault-lines-created-british-raj

India's Drone Regulations 1.0 announced

Flying of Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) or in common parlance, drones, will be legal across India from December 1, 2018. The Rules announced are the first in the series and thus titled Regulations 1.0. 

The Ministry of Civil Aviation has finalised a national drone policy, and has fixed parameters - including height - for drone flights. From the outset the policy outlines a No Drone Zones. The regulation defines "No Drone Zones" as areas around airports, near international border, Vijay Chowk in Delhi, State Secretariat Complex in state capitals, strategic locations, vital military installations and such.

Owners and pilots will have to be registered, and permission will be required for each flight. Users will need to apply for permission on an app and digital permits will be given instantly through an automated process.

During daytime flights, drones can be flown to a height of up to 400 ft. The use of drones by civilians is governed by the Directorate General of Civilian Aviation.

The new drone policy has a huge digital root. Instead of simply digitizing a paper-based process for registering and operating drones, India has formulated an all-digital process. The Digital Sky Platform is the first-of-its-kind national unmanned traffic management (UTM) platform that implements "no permission, no takeoff" (NPNT).

As per this rule, users will be required to do a one-time registration of their drones, pilots and owners. For every flight (apart for the nano category), users will be required to ask for permission on a mobile app. Once a request is filed on the app an automated process would permit or deny the request instantly.

For flying in controlled Airspace, filing of flight plan and obtaining Air Defence Clearance (ADC) /Flight Information Centre (FIC) number shall be necessary.

Source: https://m.businesstoday.in/story/flying-drones-to-be-legal-in-india-from-december-1/1/281690.html

Recommend Reading - Interview of a young lawyer

Recommended reading :
Interview of the young lawyer,
Rohan Bishayee, Legal Advisor, DFDL, on building his career in Corporate Law and work experience in South East Asia.

"To be brutally honest, Corporate Law was more of a convenience than a choice. Belonging to a family with no legal background or connections in the legal fraternity, Corporate Law provided me the stepping stone to a successful career in law. My seniors and professors from college were instrumental in steering me towards a career in Corporate Law. I received encouragement and direction from a close friend and confidant from law school, Debottam Chattopadhyay, Associate, Phoenix Legal, when it came to career choices.

Looking at the Indian market, courses on Competition Law, Capital Markets and Finance would give students ground level knowledge of the legal structure. From a global perspective, courses which give an insight on projects, energy and infrastructure related laws would hold students in good stead. I would advise students to make well informed choices based on their area of interest. The first and foremost aspect which a student should take care of is deciding an area of interest. Once that step is complete, it becomes easier to work towards making a career out of that interest area."

Further reading :

https://superlawyer.in/rohan-bishayee-associate-dfdl-mekong-building-his-career-corporate-law-work-experience-in-magic-circle-law-firm/

My Quora Answer to: How can I sue a doctor in India for medical negligence?

Read the following paragraphs from the Supreme Court Judgment, before taking a decision of suing the doctor.

94. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:-

I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.

III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.

IV.    A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
 

V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.

VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.

VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession. VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.

IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.

X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.

95. In our considered view, the aforementioned principles must be kept in view while deciding the cases of medical negligence. We should not be understood to have held that doctors can never be prosecuted for medical negligence. As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. It is imperative that the doctors must be able to perform their professional duties with free mind.

Source: Supreme Court of India : Kusum Sharma & Ors vs Batra Hospital &Med.Research ... on 10 February, 2010 Bench: Justices Dalveer Bhandari, Harjit Singh Bedi

And again, in the Judgment - Supreme Court of India - Nizam'S Institute Of Medical ... vs Prasanth S.Dhananka & Ors on 14 May, 2009 Bench: Justices B.N. Agrawal, Harjit Singh Bedi, G.S. Singhvi

(2) Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.

(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam case (1957) 2 All ER 118 (QBD)holds good in its applicability in India.

Further in the same case as above,

32. We are also cognizant of the fact that in a case involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainant by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or to the attending doctors and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care or diligence. In Savita Garg (Smt.)vs. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 it has been observed as under:

"Once an allegation is made that the patient was admitted in a particular hospital and evidence is produced to satisfy that he died because of lack of proper care and negligence, then the burden lies on the hospital to justify that there was no negligence on the part of the treating doctor or hospital. Therefore, in any case, the hospital is in a better position to disclose what care was taken or what medicine was administered to the patient. It is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence. The hospitals are institutions, people expect better and efficient service, if the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors, being employed on job basis or employed on contract basis, it is the hospital which has to justify and not impleading a particular doctor will not absolve the hospital of its responsibilities."

In conclusion, my answer to your question would be, you can approach the Consumer Forum, where you don’t have to pay any Court Fee on your claim, and you may win the case with substantial evidence on your side. For the degree of evidence that is required to win a claim of Medical Negligence see the explanation above. Whether you have winning stuff in your case or not, can be best diagnosed by a independent, equally qualified Doctor, and not a lawyer. Approach a doctor first, and then with his opinion, approach a lawyer or directly the Consumer Forum of your district.

Disclaimer: The opinion expressed above, based on assumptions, is not tantamount to Legal Advice.

My Quora Answer about Action against Bank Officers

My Quora Answer to:

What sort of legal action can be taken against bank officers for continuously ignoring unfair trade practices complaints? What sort of legal action can be taken against bank corporate office for not taking any action against it's own officers?

If your bank does not address your complaint within a month, you can approach the banking ombudsman. This is a senior official appointed by the Reserve Bank of India to redress customer complaints against deficiency in banking services, as per its scheme introduced in 1995. All scheduled commercial banks, regional rural banks and scheduled primary cooperative banks are covered under the scheme. So far, there are 15 ombudsmen, whose offices are located mostly in state capitals. Their addresses and contact details are available on the RBI website. You have to file the complaint at the office of the ombudsman under whose jurisdiction your bank branch is located. The grievances relating to credit cards and other types of services with centralised operations are to be filed with the ombudsman in whose territorial jurisdiction the billing address of the customer is located. You can put it down on a plain paper, send an e-mail, or fill the complaint form on the RBI website. There are no charges for filing a complaint.

Source: How to file a complaint against your bank

The Banking Ombudsman Scheme is an expeditious and inexpensive forum for bank customers for resolution of complaints relating to certain services rendered by banks. The Banking Ombudsman Scheme is introduced under Section 35 A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by RBI with effect from 1995. Presently the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (As amended upto July 1, 2017) is in operation. [1] The addresses of the Ombudsman are here : link . Before filing the complaint, have a look at the types of the cases handled by the Banking Ombudsman, listed here.

Hope this answers your question.

Footnotes

[1] Frequently Asked Questions

My Quora Answer to : Can an IA be filed while a court case is under CAV (i.e., judgement reserved)

My Quora Answer to : 

Can an IA be filed while a court case is under CAV (i.e., judgement reserved)

If only absolutely necessary, and is inevitable.

An Interim Application can be filed, when the case is reserved for passing Judgement, provided it is not amounting to abuse of process of the Court, and it is in the interest of justice.

Supreme Court J. P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar, have opined in their judgment in “M/S Bagai Construction Tr.Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store on 22 February, 2013”:

“19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.

12) After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.[1]

Also, Karnataka HC - J. N Jain, V Sabhahit in “Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs The Country Wide Consumer ... on 5 April, 2004” reported at ILR 2004 KAR 2215, and 2004 (4) KarLJ 189:

Even if we assume it for the sake of argument without accepting, in view of the amendment in CPC, as we find, the law relating to procedure in suits and civil proceedings are governed by CPC, The CPC has been amended from time to time.

Recently also, in order to cut short the delays at various levels in disposal of civil cases, CPC was amended by the Amendment Act of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002.

In the facts of the given case, sufficient opportunity was given to the plaintiff to complete his evidence, but he has not availed the opportunity at appropriate time and thereafter his evidence was closed. The case was fixed for defendant's evidence and ultimately the case was heard and reserved for judgment on 20.6.2001.

In our view, if the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, such an application is not maintainable as otherwise it will defeat the very object of amendment in speedy disposal of the cases.[2]

It is seen by all, and also observed by the Courts that one of the major causes of delay in decision of suit, is the practice of seeking and granting time, delaying in filing of written statements and objections, filing excessive number of Interim Applications, delaying leading of evidence, and seeking adjournments for frivolous reasons.

The Supreme Court in ARJUN SINGH v. MOHINDRA KUMAR, has held that once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, the Court has only to pronouncement the judgment.

After the deletion of the Clause (4) of Order 18 Rule 2

it clearly shows that it is not the intention of the Legislature to permit filing of the interlocutory application, even after the arguments are heard and the matter is reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and therefore, such interlocutory applications cannot be entertained..[3]

Footnotes

[1] M/S Bagai Construction Tr.Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store on 22 February, 2013

[2] Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs The Country Wide Consumer ... on 5 April, 2004

[3] Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963

Amendments to Negotiable Instruments Act - July 2018

The Lok Sabha has passed Negotiable Instruments(Amendment) Act on July 23, 2018,

“with a view to address the issue of undue delay in final resolution of cheque dishonour cases so as to provide relief to payees of dishonoured cheques and to discourage frivolous and unnecessary litigation which would save time and money”. 

As per the Amended Section 143A, interim compensation not exceeding 20% of the cheque amount can be ordered to be paid in cases where the accused does not plead guilty in a summary trial or summons case. 

The interim compensation has to paid within 60 days from order. It can be recovered in the manner of recovery of fine as per Section 421 CrPC. 

Further in the event of an acquittal, the interim compensation will have to be returned by the Complainant, alongwith interest prescribed by the RBI.

The amendment also introduces Section 148 in the Act, empowering the appellate court to direct deposit of a minimum of 20% of the cheque amount in appeal by the drawer against conviction, within a period of sixty days. 

This amount can be released to the complainant and has to be returned to the accused if the appeal is allowed.

Source: LiveLaw

Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill 2018

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2018 was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 12, 2018. 

It seeks to confiscate properties of economic offenders who have left the country to avoid facing criminal prosecution.

Fugitive economic offender:  A fugitive economic offender has been defined as a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued for committing any offence (listed in the schedule).  Further the person has: (i) left the country to avoid facing prosecution, or (ii) refuses to return to face prosecution.  Some of the offences listed in the schedule are: (i) counterfeiting government stamps or currency, (ii) cheque dishonour for insufficiency of funds, (iii) money laundering, and (iv) transactions defrauding creditors. 

The Bill allows the central government to amend the schedule through a notification.

Application:  A director or deputy director (appointed under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002) may file an application before a special court (designated under the 2002 Act) to declare a person as a fugitive economic offender.

  The application will contain: (i) the reasons to believe that an individual is a fugitive economic offender, (ii) any information about his whereabouts, (iii) a list of properties believed to be proceeds of a crime for which confiscation is sought, (iv) a list of benami properties or foreign properties for which confiscation is sought, and (v) a list of persons having an interest in these properties.
Upon receiving an application, the special court will issue a notice to the individual: (i) requiring him to appear at a specified place within six weeks, and (ii) stating that a failure to appear will result in him being declared a fugitive economic offender.  If the person appears at the specified place, the special court will terminate its proceedings under the provisions of this Bill.

Attachment of property:  The director or deputy director may attach any property mentioned in the application with the permission of a special court.  Further, these authorities may provisionally attach any property without the prior permission of the special court, provided that they file an application before the court within 30 days.  The attachment will continue for 180 days, unless extended by the special court.  If at the conclusion of proceedings, the person is not found to be a fugitive economic offender, his properties will be released.

Declaration as fugitive economic offender:  After hearing the application, the special court may declare an individual as a fugitive economic offender.  It may confiscate properties which: (i) are proceeds of crime, (ii) are benami properties in India or abroad, and (iii) any other property in India or abroad.  Upon confiscation, all rights and titles of the property will vest in the central government, free from all encumbrances (such as any charges on the property).  The central government will appoint an administrator to manage and dispose of these properties.

The Bill allows any civil court or tribunal to disallow a person, who has been declared a fugitive economic offender, from filing or defending any civil claim. 

Powers of the director:  The director or deputy director will have the powers vested in a civil court.  These powers include: (i) entering a place on the belief that an individual is a fugitive economic offender, and (ii) directing that a building be searched, or documents be seized.

Appeal:  Appeals against the orders of the special court will lie before the High Court.

 Source: prsindia.org

FEOB lists offences under 15 Indian laws including IPC and CGST Act. The government has multiple legal options to attach the property of economic-offenders.

The Indian government instead should have focussed upon the extradition treaties with different countries , so  that the option of fleeing the country would be no longer seen as the best way out. Since independence, India has signed treaties of extraction with 48 countries and extradition arrangements with 9 more. However this is not enough.

Until the extradition treaties are given priority the FEOB will not effective.

Contract Killings and Punishment

Anybody could be a hired killer in Delhi, say police; they are ready to pull the trigger for as low as Rs 40,000.

A mother of seven, a science graduate, a property dealer and a man looking for a job — the profiles of Delhi’s contract killers are diverse. For as little as Rs 40,000, some of these dreaded murderers for hire can fire a gun or wield a knife.

At least 50 contract killing cases were solved by the Delhi police in 2017. Not all of the accused had previous criminal records — some were first-time offenders with dreams of becoming rich overnight.

Former Delhi commissioner Ved Marwah said that though the phenomenon of professionals taking money to kill is spread across the world. “Contract killers are professionals and are everywhere in the world. But first-timers indulging in such crimes shows degeneration of social values. We have to strengthen the criminal justice system, raise the threshold of social behaviour and maintain higher standards.”

Source:  .hindustantimes.

Contract killings have not been alien to Delhiites but what is startling is the fact that they are no longer executed to simply settle scores in business or political rivalries but have even crept into family issues. 

A senior Gurgaon police official believes that over time contract killers have also become “sophisticated and smart.”

“They are no longer the rustic gangs from UP villages who usually worked under the patronage of some local politician or businessman. With landowners from Delhi’s fringe villages striking gold with the property boom, sufficient money has been pumped into these areas to fulfill the fancy for foreign-made guns. This explains the proliferation of guns in the NCR,” said the official.

Source: DNA

The Madras High Court Bench confirmed life sentence imposed on five contract killers, and speaking through the Division Bench of Justices A. Selvam and T. Mathivanan held :

“However high or wise a person is, when he happens to commit a crime against morality, he would certainly, in a flustered state, leave a mark of vestige. This is the archaism and that is what has happened in this case.” 

Source: the Hindu

Punishment:

The punishment for murder under India’s Penal Code is life imprisonment or death and the person is also liable to a fine.[16] 

Guidance on the application of the death sentence was provided by the Supreme Court of India in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court enunciated an approach of balancing mitigating and aggravating factors of the crime when deciding on the imposition of capital punishment.[17]  However, this approach was called into question first in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab where the Court emphasized that since an amendment was made to India’s Code of Criminal Procedure, the rule has changed so that “the offence of murder shall be punished with the sentence of life imprisonment.  The court can depart from that rule and impose the sentence of death only if there are special reasons for doing so.”[18]  The Court also emphasized that due consideration should not only be given to the circumstances of the crime but to the criminal also.[19] 

However, more recently the Court in Sangeet & Anr. v. State of Haryana, noted that the approach in Bachan has not been fully adopted subsequently,[20] that “primacy still seems to be given to the nature of the crime,” and that the “circumstances of the criminal, referred to in Bachan Singh appear to have taken a bit of a back seat in the sentencing process.”[21] The Court in Sangeet concluded as follows:

This Court has not endorsed the approach of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in [the 1971 case of] Bachan Singh.  However, this approach has been adopted in several decisions.  This needs a fresh look.  In any event, there is little or no uniformity in the application of this approach.

Aggravating circumstances relate to the crime while mitigating circumstances relate to the criminal.  A balance sheet cannot be drawn up for comparing the two.  The considerations for both are distinct and unrelated.  The use of the mantra of aggravating and mitigating circumstances needs a review.

In the sentencing process, both the crime and the criminal are equally important. We have, unfortunately, not taken the sentencing process as seriously as it should be with the result that in capital offences, it has become judge-centric sentencing rather than principled sentencing.

The Constitution Bench of this Court has not encouraged standardization and categorization of crimes and even otherwise it is not possible to standardize and categorize all crimes.

The grant of remissions is statutory.  However, to prevent its arbitrary exercise, the legislature has built in some procedural and substantive checks in the statute.  These need to be faithfully enforced.[22]

Source: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/india.php

After looking at the judgments of various cases, in my opinion, section 307 IPC is very confusing in so far as the basis of the conviction of accused is concerned. There is a common ingredient which is required for the conviction under this section and that element is intention along with the knowledge and the implication of the act done. All the courts across the board agree on the fact that the intention to commit murder and the preparation for the act must be present. However the element where the courts differ with each other is the matter of proving the intention.

The difference being that courts say that to prove the intention of the accused, the nature of the injury, the nature of the weapon used, preparation taken are taken into account however surprisingly the courts arrive at different conclusions regarding these facts. That is in some cases the courts have ruled that even if the weapon used was dangerous but caused a simple wound, there would be no conviction under section 307 and in another case the court rules that even if no injury is caused the accused can be convicted if intention to kill is proved. This is contradictory in nature. In one case the court also ruled that forced starvation can also be convicted under section 307.

The questioning of the constitutional validity of this section was a legitimate question which was solved by a very simple answer by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The main conclusion is that there is no hard and fast rule about the methodology of proving the intention of the accused, that may vary from case to case and it is the judge’s responsibility to take cognizance of the facts before him and decide on the intention of the accused and it is the intention which matters the most in conviction.

The nature of the injuries, weapons used are merely clues that the judiciary uses to reach to a conclusion about the intention of the accused. So it can be safely said that even of no injury is caused a person can be convicted under this section.

Source: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/attempt-murder-section-307-ipc/

Plea before Supreme Court to declare Muslim Polygamy and Nikah-Halala as criminal offences

A mother of three who was divorced twice through instant triple talaq has approached the Supreme Court to declare polygamy and Nikah Halala as unconstitutional among Muslims.

Earlier, BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay had filed a plea seeking a complete prohibition on polygamy and Nikah Halala for violating fundamental rights of Muslim women.

One of the earlier such pleas heard and decided by the court was that of Shayara Bano who had approached the apex court to declare triple talaq as a violation of gender justice. A five-judge bench had declared instant talaq to be an un-Islamic practice and struck it down.

Sameena Begum was first married in 1999 and she produced two sons. After repeated abuse and a consequent police complaint, she was given triple talaq. She was forced to marry again but to an already married man. After she got pregnant again, she was given triple talaq over the phone after a trivial argument.

Now, Sameena lives alone with her three children. She said she has filed the PIL not only for herself but also for others who have suffered the same plight.

She requested the court that Section 2 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, be declared as arbitrary and violating Articles 14, 15, 21 and 25 of the Constitution, insofar as it seeks to recognise and validate polygamy and Nikah Halala.

It has also requested the court to ensure that provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are applicable on all Indian citizens. The plea also sought recognition that "triple talaq is a cruelty under IPC Section 498A, Nikah-Halala is rape under IPC Section 375, polygamy is an offence under Section 494 of the IPC".

"The concept of polygamy was allowed in this verse (Quran) because of utmost concern for the welfare of women and orphans who were left behind in the battle. It is pertinent to mention that by no means it is a general licence to Muslims in present times to marry with more than one woman. Besides it puts onus on them to treat the additional spouses justly, which is admittedly a difficult task," the plea said.

Bearing a similarity with the triple talaq plea, the plea too has cited international laws and countries where polygamy has been prohibited.

It also noted that polygamy is totally prohibited in Tunisia and Turkey. "In countries like Indonesia, Iraq, Somalia, Syria, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is permissible only if authorised by the prescribed authority," it said.

Sameena said, “Equality should be the basis of all personal law since the Constitution envisages equality, justice and dignity for women."

​The petitioner contended that though it is illegal for Muslim women to marry a second time during subsistence of first marriage but "there is no requirement for Muslim husband so that the permission of the first wife is to be taken before contracting second marriage".

Source:  News18.com

Cabinet approves the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2018

The Union Cabinet has approved the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Bill, 2018 for introduction in the Parliament.

The Bill seeks to achieve the following objectives:

• The Bill brings down the specified value of a commercial dispute to 3 Lakhs from the present one Crore. Therefore, commercial disputes of a reasonable value can be decided by commercial courts. This would bring down the time taken (presently 1445 days) in resolution of commercial disputes of lesser value and thus further improve India's ranking in the Ease of Doing Business.

• The amendment provides for establishment of Commercial Courts at district Judge level for the territories over which respective High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction i.e in the cities of Chennai, Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and State of Himachal Pradesh. The State Governments, in such territories may by notification specify such pecuniary value of commercial disputes to be adjudicated at the district level, which shall 'not be less than three lakhs rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the district court. In the jurisdiction of High Courts other than those exercising ordinary original jurisdiction a forum of Appeal in commercial dispute decided by commercial courts below the level of District judge is being provided, in the form of Commercial Appellate Courts to be at district judge level.

• The introduction of the Pre-Institution Mediation process in cases where no urgent, interim relief is contemplated will provide an opportunity to the parties to resolve the commercial disputes outside the ambit of the courts through the authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 will also help in reinforcing investor's confidence in the resolution of commercial disputes.

• Insertion of new section of 21A which enables the Central Government to make rules and procedures for PIM.

• To give prospective effect to the amendment so as not to disturb the authority of the judicial forum presently adjudicating the commercial disputes as per the extant provisions of the Act.

With the rapid economic development there has been considerable increase in commercial activities and consequent steep rise in number of commercial disputes at domestic and international level. Increase of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and overseas commercial transactions have further contributed to a significant increase of commercial disputes.

With a view to address the issue faster resolution of matters relating to commercial disputes and to create a positive image particularly among the foreign investors about the independent and responsive Indian legal system, the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 was enacted and commercial courts were established at District Levels in all jurisdictions, except in the territories over which the High Courts have original ordinary civil jurisdiction. These five High Courts i.e. the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and of Himachal Pradesh, exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction in regard to territories of cities of Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh respectively. In such territories of these High Courts as per proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 there are no commercial courts at district level and instead Commercial Divisions have been constituted in each of these High Courts.

The specified value of such commercial disputes to be adjudicated by the Commercial Courts or the Commercial Division of High Court, as the case may be is presently Rs. one Crore.

Ease of Doing Business is an index of World Bank which inter alia refers to the dispute resolution environment in a country which facilitates the investors in deciding for setting up of and operation of a business.

Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill to deal with the lokes of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi

The Union Cabinet has approved the Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill, 2017 on 1st March 2018

The Bill would help in  laying down measures to deter economic offenders from evading the process of Indian law by remaining outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts.

This would also help the banks and other financial institutions to achieve higher recovery from financial defaults committed by such fugitive economic offenders, improving the financial health of such institutions.

Economic offences are those that are defined under the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the SEBI Act, the Customs Act, the Companies Act, Limited Liability Partnership Act, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Offences involving amounts of ₹100 crore or more fall under the purview of this law.

Who is a ‘fugitive economic offender’?

According to Section 4 of the law, a ‘fugitive economic offender’ is “any individual against whom a warrant for arrest in relation to a scheduled offence has been issued by any court in India, who:

(i) leaves or has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution; or

(ii) refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution.”

How is a person declared an offender?

A Director, appointed by the central government, will have to file an application to a Special Court to declare a person as a ‘fugitive economic offender’.

Under Clause (2) of Section 6, the application must contain:

“(a) reason/s for the belief that an individual is a fugitive economic offender;

(b) any information available as to the whereabouts of the fugitive economic offender;

(c) a list of properties or the value of such properties believed to be the proceeds of crime, including any such property outside India for which confiscation is sought;

(d) a list of properties owned by the person in India for which confiscation is sought;

(e) a list of persons who may have an interest in any of the properties listed under sub-clauses (c) and (d).”

The Director has the power to attach any property the accused holds.

What does the offender have to do?

The Court will issue a notice to the person named a ‘fugitive economic offender’. Within six weeks from the date of notice, the person will have to present themselves at “a specified place at a specified time”. If the offender fails to do so, they will be declared a ‘fugitive economic offender’ and their properties as listed in the Director’s application will be confiscated.

Once property is confiscated, can the offender file a civil claim?

No. Section 11 of the Act disqualifies those declared as offenders from either filing or defending a civil claim in court.

What happens to the properties?

The Special court will appoint an ‘administrator’ to oversee the confiscated property. This person will be responsible for disposing of the property as well, and the property will be used to satisfy creditors’ claims.

After two instances of businessmen  fleeing the country to avoid being arrested for economic fraud, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had announced in last year’s Union Budget that the government would soon bring about a law that would allow the state to take possession of properties belonging to such offenders. 

Salient features of the Bill:

Application before the Special Court for a declaration that an individual is a fugitive economic offender;Attachment of the property of a fugitive economic offender;Issue of a notice by the Special Court to the individual alleged to be a fugitive economic offender;Confiscation of the property of an individual declared as a fugitive economic offender resulting from the proceeds of crime;Confiscation of other  property belonging to such offender in India and abroad, including benami property;Disentitlement of the fugitive economic offender from defending any civil claim; andvii. An Administrator will be appointed to manage and dispose of the confiscated property under the Act.

If at any point of time in the course of the proceeding prior to the declaration, however, the alleged Fugitive Economic Offender returns to India and submits to the appropriate jurisdictional Court, proceedings under the proposed Act would cease by law. All necessary constitutional safeguards in terms of providing hearing to the person through counsel, allowing him time to file a reply, serving notice of summons to him, whether in India or abroad and appeal to the High Court have been provided for. Further, provision has been made for appointment of an Administrator to manage and dispose of the property in compliance with the provisions of law.

Implementation strategy and targets:

In order to address the lacunae in the present laws and lay down measures to deter economic offenders from evading the process of Indian law by remaining outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts, the Bill is being proposed. The Bill makes provisions for a Court ('Special Court' under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002) to declare a person as a Fugitive Economic Offender. A Fugitive Economic Offender is a person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued in respect of a scheduled offence and who has left India so as to avoid criminal prosecution, or being abroad, refuses to return to India to face criminal prosecution. A scheduled offence refers to a list of economic offences contained in the Schedule to this Bill. Further, in order to ensure that Courts are not over-burdened with such cases, only those cases where the total value involved in such offences is 100 crore rupees or more, is within the purview of this Bill.

Sources:

1. The Hindu

2. http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=176920

A Chief Justice - Proud moment for SDM Law College Mangalore

Its indeed a very proud moment for the SDM Law College Mangalore as one of  its students is now appointed a Chief Justice.

Justice Antony Dominic; (born 30 May 1956) is the Chief Justice at the High Court of Kerala since February 2018.

The High Court, headquartered at Ernakulam, is the highest court in the Indian state of Kerala and in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

Dominic obtained his degree in law from S.D.M Law College, Mangalore.

Career

He started practice in Munsiff’s Court and JFCM, Kanjirappally in 1981. Later, Dominic shifted to Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in 1986.

He acquired extensive experience in Company, Labour and Constitutional laws.

Dominic was appointed as Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court in January 2007 and promoted to be a Permanent Judge in December 2008.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Dominic

What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? - Judgment Reading

In the leading case H. Venkatachala Iyengar v B.N. Tkimma-jamma, the Supreme Court has stated the manner and nature of proof required to prove a Will and the solemnity attached to the same which is as follows:

"What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of Wills? It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for decision in Courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a Court of Law. Similarly, Sections 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by Will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Wilt or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This section also requires that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the Will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last Will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will? Did he put his signature to the Will knowing what it contained"? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of Wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.

However, there is one important feature which distinguishes Wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the Will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his Will or not; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last Will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of Wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will. Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated".

10. Thus the principle that is evolved by the Supreme Court in short is that "where circumstances exist which excite suspicion of the Court, the propounder has to remove such suspicion and prove affirmatively that the testator knew and approved the contents of the documents". But what are suspicious circumstances is difficult to illustrate exhaustively. It depends upon facts of each case. Broadly stated some of the prominent ones indicated by the Court in the said decision being "signature is doubtful, condition of the mind is very feeble and debilitated, the disposition made in the Will is very unnatural, unfair, improbable in the light of relevant circumstances". In a later decision in Smt. Indu Bala and Others v Manindra Chandra Bose and Another, the principles of Venkataehala's case, supra, has been reiterated and some of suspicious circumstances has been illustrated in a little more detail viz., "The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair, in the light of relevant circumstances". The Court has however sounded a word of caution by stating "Needless to say that any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal as is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person". Again in PPK Gopalan Nambiar v PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar and Others, it has been stated in order that the circumstances can be stated to be suspicious which should be removed by the propounder of the Will, it has stated "It is trite, that it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will add remove all suspected features. But there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind".

Thus what emerges from a reading of Section 59 of Indian Succession Act. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act; and the decisions referred to above is: That when a Will is sought to be probated by the propounder, and is charged or attacked by the caveator, the initial burden is on the propounder of the Will first to prove the Will by establishing that the executor or executrix as the case may be was not a minor, was of sound mind knew the contents and signed the Will in the presence and at least by two witnesses, and at least one of the attesting witness has to be examined as provided under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and then remove from the mind of Court every circumstance of legitimate suspicion which is found to exist; but the suspicious circumstances must be real, germane to the case, but the approach to the question cannot be in the often quoted passage by the Supreme Court of Lord-da-pareq in Harmes v Hinksan:

"Where a Will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to truth".

One other important factor that has also to be kept in mind is that Courts should also guard in not over emphasizing circumstances which may look suspicious (though on a closer look it may not be red) which may result in frustrating the 'intention of the testator'.

After the propounder removes the legitimate suspicion circumstances if any then the burden shifts on the person attacking the Will on any grounds viz., fraud, undue influence, coercion, mistake etc., which burden he has to discharge by proper plea and proof.

Source: Karnataka High Court in Krishnabai vs Maheshwar on 10 December, 1998

Equivalent citations: ILR 1999 KAR 1038, 1999 (6) KarLJ 357Bench: Justice H Rangavittalachar

Sign this Petition: Stop GoK KTPA Amendment to destroy trees

Excerpt from the Petition:

http://chn.ge/2svTzwb

The pernicious proposed amendment to denotify 50 species of trees will ensure any and all of our trees can be cut down by ANY civic agency BBMP BSNL BWSSB BESCOM Et al. 

We have enough green issues in our depeleting, denuded city The rule on cutting 50 trees plus needing public consultation is at best at is more followed as the exception than rule.

This move is anti environment, anti citizen & anti city -it will affect our city natural heritage,  the air we breathe, climate charge, water conservation and and sheer beauty & aesthetics. In addition it will lead to rampant green carnage and complete disregard for the environment by corrupt builders and/or  bureaucrats. Kings of yore lined paths with trees to offer shade & respitevtonits citizens, butvyoday our democratically elected leaders seem to dismiss all such basic goodness as luxuries, while they sit in air conditioned offices and spew pollution in their taxpayer funded cars . 

What is doubly worrying is not just that they are trying to slime this amendment through, but despite citizen might on protecting green  , they seem still brazenly committed to the destruction of the city. What does it say about our lawmakers ? What trust can we have in them ? They have tried this before with the steel flyover and the timber mafia had to back off. 

MLAs, please vote AGAINST the amendment if you care for this city and it’s future, and if you care for the air we breathe & the water we drink. We said Beda before to protect our beloved Bengaluru and we are saying it again.

#EnoughAlready.
#StopKilling ourCity  
#MaraKaraBedi so #KillBill .
Show us that #GoKLovesGreen NOT #GoKKillsGreen

As Harini Nagendra Eco expert says : How to fell trees and destroy the environment
1) Amend tree act to exclude most common species from protection
2) Chop, chop, build, build
3) Complain about #airpollution and lack of water #Bangalore #Sustainability

Further reading… Bangalore Mirror

Please sign http://chn.ge/2svTzwb
And make a difference.

Enemy Property Amendment and Validation Act and it's effect on China - EconomicTimes

The amendment of the 49-year-old Enemy Property (Amendment and Validation) Act after which the Narendra Modi government plans to auction more than 9,400 properties of those who took citizenship of China has made China jittery. 

Chinese investment in India has grown rapidly in the past few years. China fears India can confiscate assets of its companies, such as Xiaomi and Lenovo, if the two countries enter a military conflict. Last year, Indian and China faced off for months over construction by Chinese troops in the Doklam region. Though the conflict was resolved, tension persists in India-China relations. 

"If China and India become involved in a military conflict, the assets of Chinese companies doing business in India may be confiscated by the Indian government," said an article in state-run Chinese news outlet Global Times. 

According to data provided in the report of the parliament select committee on the bill, there are 9,280 immovable properties belonging to Pakistani nationals encompassing 11,882 acres. The total value of immovable properties that are vested with the custodian stood at Rs 1.04 lakh crore. Movable vested properties consist of shares in 266 listed companies valued at Rs 2,610 crore; shares in 318 unlisted companies valued at Rs 24 crore; gold and jewellery worth Rs 0.4 crore; bank balances of Rs 177 crore; investment in government securities of Rs 150 crore and investment in fixed deposits of Rs 160 crore. 

Besides this, there are 149 immovable enemy properties of Chinese nationals with the custodian in West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Delhi. 

Source:
https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/modis-amended-enemy-property-law-gives-jitters-to-china/amp_articleshow/62601031.cms

Sebi bans PwC entities from auditing listed firms for two years

*Sebi bans PwC entities from auditing listed firms for two years Sebi also orders disgorgement of over Rs13 crore of wrongful gains from PwC and two erstwhile partners*

The order comes nine years after the scam at Satyam Computer Services came to light and after two failed attempts by PwC to settle the case through the consent mechanism.

Finding PwC guilty in the Satyam scam, India’s capital markets regulator on Wednesday barred its network entities from issuing audit certificates to any listed company in India for two years.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) also ordered the disgorgement of over Rs13 crore of wrongful gains from the auditing firm and its two erstwhile partners who worked on the IT company’s accounts. The order comes nine years after the scam at Satyam Computer Services came to light and after two failed attempts by PwC to settle the case through the consent mechanism.

This is also one of the most stringent orders passed by any regulator against a Big Four auditor.

In a 108-page order, Sebi has imposed a two-year ban on entities/ firms practicing as chartered accountants in India under the brand and banner of PwC from directly or indirectly issuing any certificate of audit of listed companies, compliance of obligations of listed companies and intermediaries registered with the regulator.

Sebi noted that the order would not impact audit assignments relating to the fiscal year 2017-18 undertaken by the firms forming part of the PwC network. Besides, Price Waterhouse Bangalore and its two erstwhile partners—S. Gopalakrishnan and Srinivas Talluri—have been directed to jointly and severally disgorge the wrongful gains of “Rs13,09,01,664 with interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from January 7, 2009 till the date of payment”. They have to pay the amount within 45 days.

Further, Gopalakrishnan and Talluri have been restrained from directly or indirectly issuing any certificate of audit of listed companies, compliance of obligations of listed companies and intermediaries registered with Sebi for three years.

After consent pleas were rejected, PwC had approached the Supreme Court challenging Sebi’s jurisdiction over auditors. The apex court had asked the regulator to expeditiously pass the order in the matter after giving due opportunity, including access to documents, to the parties concerned.

Sebi said the objective of insulating the securities market from such fraudulent accounting practices perpetrated by an international firm of repute will be ineffective if the directions do not bring within its sweep the brand name PwC. The network structure of operations adopted by the international accounting firm should not be used as a shield to avoid legal implications arising out of the certifications issued under the brand name of the network, the order said.

“As we have said since 2009, there has been no intentional wrong doing by PW firms in the unprecedented management perpetrated fraud at Satyam, nor have we seen any material evidence to the contrary. We believe that the order is also not in line with the directions of the Bombay High Court order of 2011 and so we are confident of getting a stay before this order becomes effective,” PwC said in the statement.

It also noted that the order relates to a fraud that took place nearly a decade ago in which it played no part and had no knowledge of. Further, the statement said that Price Waterhouse Network firms in India has learnt the lessons of Satyam and invested heavily over the last nine years in building a robust and high quality audit practice.

First Published: Thu, Jan 11 2018. 12 38 AM IST
Source - http://www.livemint.com/Companies/KlbBm6VhxhQQswdgT9bycK/Satyam-case-Sebi-bans-PwC-entities-from-auditing-listed-fir.html